1. Read the assigned article below, and create your wiki-response as usual.
2. Review our notes from the "formative debate" and prepare to write a "letter to the editor" on Monday.
Read the article and write a response on the Discussion. Respond to two other people.
NOTES FROM OUR DEBATE, TO HELP YOU WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR IN CLASS ON MONDAY
Group 1 - teachers - Oppose standardized testing: Standardized tests standardize tests, students, teachers, curriculums, makes things conform, forces people into conformity. So much diversity in classrooms, this diversity should be valued and explored not slammed down and made not important. Ignoring diversity privileges represented cultures, reproduces existing social hierarchy. Who sets the curriculum? What right do they have? limits possibilities for teaching. What about content that is not on the test? How can teachers shape citizens, a democracy if they are just preparing students for a test? What about cheating? Stakes - stressful for districts, students and teachers. One variable that alters test score can alter funding, jobs, etc. so much pressure for something that is not valuable. Putting a value on spitting out information. Doesn't make any sense. Not a true representation of what students know and what they have learned. One chance is not fair. In sports, teams get multiple chances. What is education? What does it mean? Group 2 - students Teachers put too much emphasis on standardized tests, it's all we hear. More ways to be evaluated. Puts pressure on us. Pressure can result in poor performance or cheating. Also, teachers are taking out their stress on students, try to guilt us into caring about the tests. Threaten to cut our favorite programs if we don't do well. Sometimes teachers are bad, and don't teach well. Requirements to prep. for the Regents keep us from other kinds of learnings, electives. Not our fault if we don't do well. Bloody test from nose bleed. Turns into a mean, hostile, environment. Is that all I should care about in school? I am starting not to care. Not fair if one student tries hard, is smart, strong in other areas, but a strong test taker is valued. Not fair to pass students who do well. Competition in classes encouraged. Tracking results from these tests. What is the goal? What is the value of the test? Who grades them? Who keeps them? TAking them forever. . . all the kids who have money can get books on how to take the tests. Kids who don't have money are at a disadvantage. Creates a social hierarchy with grades in school. Ask a teacher a question, and they might not have time to answer because of time constraints. Group 3 - principalsLiike assessments - baseline for teachers to follow. Essential philosophy comes from tests. Don't de-personalize, but let students know what is expected of them, vs. a subjective classroom - connects to overall image of the school, maintains communities, because parents will bring students into schools that have high test grades. If the teachers teach well and the kids do well, the kids do well, and we look good.
Group 4 - politicians We in strong support of standardized tests. Focus on tests have led to upward progress in grades and scores. Students have been doing a lot better. Rising test scores are evidence of improved teaching and learning. Regents align with Standards. Test prep. classrooms lead to learning. Lead to "real" and "legitimate" learning. Standardized testing is good for evaluating the teachers in the system. Good teachers. Some people would argue that there is a gap in test score results SES. . . it's important to not focus on the gap, we don't want to see achievement gaps narrow toward poor testing. We want to focus on getting scores up. We find these tests to be important for examining schools and districts and their performances. If people teach well, good grades, they should be rewarded. Non-performance = they should work harder. Some teachers have said that preparing students for test has served them well. And some students admit that they like passing tests and learning stuff and "making my brain smarter." Group 5 - test prep. companies - test making companies - We decided we would make test prep. easier. . . instead of leaving it in the hands of teachers, online sources - computers can do it. Not all teachers are good and can be trusted. Classes offered to students. Guarantee a certain score. Hard working and smart enough = achievement. Other kinds of tests. . . multiple intelligence tests. We do the research. Teachers, if you want to get rid of standardized tests, how might you guarantee standard assessments? State standards guarantee some kind of conformity. I don't think I want to test all students the same way. They learn differently. It's our job to assess our students based on where they are?What if you have a bad teacher? Standardized tests might be protecting bad teachers. . . teachers are in the networking business. They form teams, groups, we learn from each other. Share resources and ideas. Keep each other in check. Rigorous professional training helps us create an "arsonal" of assessments we can use, a variety of assessments that can be individualized. We didn't get in it for the money. Teachers, if you are so rigorously professionally trained, teaching the standards, how hard can it be to create a fun, innovative curriculum that involves the standards. Can't you teach to the test creatively? Who is verifying that the test prep is aligned with the standards? State standards support a variety of assessment. Standards and standardized tests are not the same thing. Standards are good - vague and open-ended. The tests themselves don't have the same open-endedness. Cater to the wealthy. You want to make the test easier - how would you accomodate multiple intelligences. Teachers will slack off. How do expect to get anywhere in life if you can't take a standardized test? I will be "tested/assessed" on other strengths. There are plenty of people who graduate from schools without testing, and they do just fine. If I want to go to art school, why do I have to take tests?Society is this state. . . this country. Test prep. What about students who can't afford the test prep. Principals: How will you support our involvement in education? Don't you really care? Teachers: How do you justify. . . use the language of fair. . . when the white, middle class "baseline" sets the standards for tests? Not everyone can afford the test and test prep. how is that moral? Students don't have access to extra test prep. How can the test prep. make access to studying and success fair?
http://www.reading.org/Resources/Radio.aspx
1. Read the assigned article below, and create your wiki-response as usual.
2. Review our notes from the "formative debate" and prepare to write a "letter to the editor" on Monday.
Literacy in the content areas
Read the article and write a response on the Discussion. Respond to two other people.
NOTES FROM OUR DEBATE, TO HELP YOU WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR IN CLASS ON MONDAY
Group 1 - teachers - Oppose standardized testing: Standardized tests standardize tests, students, teachers, curriculums, makes things conform, forces people into conformity. So much diversity in classrooms, this diversity should be valued and explored not slammed down and made not important. Ignoring diversity privileges represented cultures, reproduces existing social hierarchy. Who sets the curriculum? What right do they have? limits possibilities for teaching. What about content that is not on the test? How can teachers shape citizens, a democracy if they are just preparing students for a test? What about cheating? Stakes - stressful for districts, students and teachers. One variable that alters test score can alter funding, jobs, etc. so much pressure for something that is not valuable. Putting a value on spitting out information. Doesn't make any sense. Not a true representation of what students know and what they have learned. One chance is not fair. In sports, teams get multiple chances. What is education? What does it mean? Group 2 - students Teachers put too much emphasis on standardized tests, it's all we hear. More ways to be evaluated. Puts pressure on us. Pressure can result in poor performance or cheating. Also, teachers are taking out their stress on students, try to guilt us into caring about the tests. Threaten to cut our favorite programs if we don't do well. Sometimes teachers are bad, and don't teach well. Requirements to prep. for the Regents keep us from other kinds of learnings, electives. Not our fault if we don't do well. Bloody test from nose bleed. Turns into a mean, hostile, environment. Is that all I should care about in school? I am starting not to care. Not fair if one student tries hard, is smart, strong in other areas, but a strong test taker is valued. Not fair to pass students who do well. Competition in classes encouraged. Tracking results from these tests. What is the goal? What is the value of the test? Who grades them? Who keeps them? TAking them forever. . . all the kids who have money can get books on how to take the tests. Kids who don't have money are at a disadvantage. Creates a social hierarchy with grades in school. Ask a teacher a question, and they might not have time to answer because of time constraints. Group 3 - principalsLiike assessments - baseline for teachers to follow. Essential philosophy comes from tests. Don't de-personalize, but let students know what is expected of them, vs. a subjective classroom - connects to overall image of the school, maintains communities, because parents will bring students into schools that have high test grades. If the teachers teach well and the kids do well, the kids do well, and we look good.
Group 4 - politicians We in strong support of standardized tests. Focus on tests have led to upward progress in grades and scores. Students have been doing a lot better. Rising test scores are evidence of improved teaching and learning. Regents align with Standards. Test prep. classrooms lead to learning. Lead to "real" and "legitimate" learning. Standardized testing is good for evaluating the teachers in the system. Good teachers. Some people would argue that there is a gap in test score results SES. . . it's important to not focus on the gap, we don't want to see achievement gaps narrow toward poor testing. We want to focus on getting scores up. We find these tests to be important for examining schools and districts and their performances. If people teach well, good grades, they should be rewarded. Non-performance = they should work harder. Some teachers have said that preparing students for test has served them well. And some students admit that they like passing tests and learning stuff and "making my brain smarter." Group 5 - test prep. companies - test making companies - We decided we would make test prep. easier. . . instead of leaving it in the hands of teachers, online sources - computers can do it. Not all teachers are good and can be trusted. Classes offered to students. Guarantee a certain score. Hard working and smart enough = achievement. Other kinds of tests. . . multiple intelligence tests. We do the research. Teachers, if you want to get rid of standardized tests, how might you guarantee standard assessments? State standards guarantee some kind of conformity. I don't think I want to test all students the same way. They learn differently. It's our job to assess our students based on where they are?What if you have a bad teacher? Standardized tests might be protecting bad teachers. . . teachers are in the networking business. They form teams, groups, we learn from each other. Share resources and ideas. Keep each other in check. Rigorous professional training helps us create an "arsonal" of assessments we can use, a variety of assessments that can be individualized. We didn't get in it for the money. Teachers, if you are so rigorously professionally trained, teaching the standards, how hard can it be to create a fun, innovative curriculum that involves the standards. Can't you teach to the test creatively? Who is verifying that the test prep is aligned with the standards? State standards support a variety of assessment. Standards and standardized tests are not the same thing. Standards are good - vague and open-ended. The tests themselves don't have the same open-endedness. Cater to the wealthy. You want to make the test easier - how would you accomodate multiple intelligences. Teachers will slack off. How do expect to get anywhere in life if you can't take a standardized test? I will be "tested/assessed" on other strengths. There are plenty of people who graduate from schools without testing, and they do just fine. If I want to go to art school, why do I have to take tests?Society is this state. . . this country. Test prep. What about students who can't afford the test prep. Principals: How will you support our involvement in education? Don't you really care? Teachers: How do you justify. . . use the language of fair. . . when the white, middle class "baseline" sets the standards for tests? Not everyone can afford the test and test prep. how is that moral? Students don't have access to extra test prep. How can the test prep. make access to studying and success fair?